What can I do when RBS refuse to remove a late payment from credit profile?

agrinnall

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

You went over your credit limit.

They reported to the CRA that you went over your credit limit.

It's not exactly inaccurate on their part, is it?

No, they reported a late payment. Of course, that's also accurate, but it's not such a clear cut situation as a simple over credit limit would be (I'm not even sure if that can be reported).

RBS_Sucks

@Peacefulwaters

There's a little more to it than that.

It shows as a late payment rather than as going over the credit limit however the point is that they've attempted to take the amount over the credit limit as well as the minimum payment amount. As this is a secondary bank account my direct debits come from I was not aware this would happen in advance and as such they attempted to take more than is detailed within their terms and conditions.

If they attempt to take more than it states they will within their terms and conditions then what is the point in having the terms and conditions. It forms part of a contract after all which is there to support both parties, not just the one.

chattychappy

Well, I'm sympathetic to the OP and I think some of the replies are clouding issues.

The OP's conduct in going over the credit limit issue is irrelevant. The OP shouldn't have done. I agree with the majority of posters that it's not for the bank to prevent the OP going over the limit, but that's beside the point.

Payment was late because the DD "bounced". RBS tried to collect the usual minimum plus the "over limit" amount. In all the discussions the OP has had with RBS, they have been unable to show him where this is provided for in the T+Cs. The OP has asked for this - that's a totally reasonable thing to do given that the provision is not in his/her copy.

Undoubtedly as ZX81 has said, such T+Cs can be found and I've seen them on cards I've had. RBS must show that they issued different T+Cs to what the OP is holding or they were varied. If they can do this, then the OP is probably sunk (and generally in law for this type of thing it's acceptable to show you sent something, you don't have to prove it was received.)

Personally I don't use DDs. I thought they were meant to tell you on a statement the amount that would be collected. Was this the case?

But whether it was or whether it wasn't, the bank should be able to demonstrate they were entitled to take the amount they attempted to. If they can't then the late payment marker should be removed, because the correct (the minimum) amount of funds were available for the taking but they chose to attempt to collect more.

meer53

Card issuers aren't in control of transactions on credit cards. When you use your card, the payment is authorised and the retailer is guaranteed to receive those funds. It's then up to the retailer to process that payment, they may not process it for a while, so when they do, if you're close to your limit, it will debit and take you over your limit. The card issuer can't refuse to pay it because you had available funds at the time it was made.

It's up to you to make sure you don't spend over your limit, not the card issuer. I can't see why they would remove the marker, they haven't done anything wrong.

No_6

Still can not see why anyone would not use DD's for minimum payments
or even full payments by DD.
Never had any problems with DD in all my many banking years.

haven't read the full posts, so may be talking c...p

msallen

RBS_Sucks wrote: »

@Peacefulwaters

There's a little more to it than that.

It shows as a late payment rather than as going over the credit limit however the point is that they've attempted to take the amount over the credit limit as well as the minimum payment amount. As this is a secondary bank account my direct debits come from I was not aware this would happen in advance and as such they attempted to take more than is detailed within their terms and conditions.

If they attempt to take more than it states they will within their terms and conditions then what is the point in having the terms and conditions. It forms part of a contract after all which is there to support both parties, not just the one.

You mean you didn't read your statement issued weeks beforehand?

Herbalus

No_6 wrote: »

Still can not see why anyone would not use DD's for minimum payments
or even full payments by DD.
Never had any problems with DD in all my many banking years.

It's all about preference. Some people feel they have more control with manual payments, and if a DD isn't used for a time (I think 12 months) it elapses so can't be relied on anyway.

But I agree with the above poster, was the amount due not on the statement?

chattychappy

Agree with this:

meer53 wrote: »

Card issuers aren't in control of transactions on credit cards. When you use your card, the payment is authorised and the retailer is guaranteed to receive those funds. It's then up to the retailer to process that payment, they may not process it for a while, so when they do, if you're close to your limit, it will debit and take you over your limit. The card issuer can't refuse to pay it because you had available funds at the time it was made.

It's up to you to make sure you don't spend over your limit, not the card issuer.

But it's all irrelevant. The issue is the late payment marker. The OP had the funds in his bank account to cover the payment that according to his copy of the T+Cs the bank were entitled to take. They took more....

meer53 wrote: »

I can't see why they would remove the marker, they haven't done anything wrong.

So they MAY have done something wrong... only if the OP doesn't have the correct copy of the T+Cs that apply.

meer53

chattychappy wrote: »

Agree with this:


But it's all irrelevant. The issue is the late payment marker. The OP had the funds in his bank account to cover the payment that according to his copy of the T+Cs the bank were entitled to take. They took more....



So they MAY have done something wrong... only if the OP doesn't have the correct copy of the T+Cs that apply.

Most card issuers i know will take the overlimit amount in addition to any other amount which is due. Also that months statement would have shown the amount which they were going to claim.

Quick google, it states on this that they will take the amount over the limit, may not be the right card T & C's but can't see them differing for others.
http://personal.rbs.co.uk/content/dam/rbs_co_uk/creditcards/downloads/platinum_balance_transfer_credit_card_summary.pdf

chattychappy

meer53 wrote: »

Most card issuers i know will take the overlimit amount in addition to any other amount which is due. Also that months statement would have shown the amount which they were going to claim.

Quick google, it states on this that they will take the amount over the limit, may not be the right card T & C's but can't see them differing for others.
http://personal.rbs.co.uk/content/dam/rbs_co_uk/creditcards/downloads/platinum_balance_transfer_credit_card_summary.pdf

Yep - we've been there before. ZX81 found such T+Cs several posts back.

That's the issue, isn't it? The T+Cs the OP has in front of him ARE different - and so far, when he called them they haven't been able to provide him with T+Cs that do say they can take the additional amount. Now they say they won't take the complaint any further.